User talk:Lambiam/Archive 11

Meijer G-function disagreement
Changed your renaming of the integration variable in the second integral from z to y back to z: the variable is unchanged from the z in the first integral, just the function G(z) is here replaced by an equivalent G(1/z). In the third integral, however, the substitution z = 1/x has been made, hence a new variable name is needed. How about inserting a stub article on C.S. Meijer? Suitable Reference: B.L.J. Braaksma, In Memoriam C.S. Meijer, Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde (3), Vol. XXIII (1975), pp. 95-104. Martin (62.180.184.56 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)).

What's your problem?
Hi Lambian,

regarding the Hilbert's problems wikipedia entry, I wonder what could be YOUR problem with the following edits you have made. --- (cur) (last) 08:36, 28 June 2008 Lambiam (Talk | contribs) m (21,028 bytes) (rm irrelevant See also) (undo)  (cur) (last) 08:34, 28 June 2008 Lambiam (Talk | contribs) (21,061 bytes) (reduce overlinking) (undo)  --- "Irrelevant"? "Overlinking"? FYI the entry "Hilbert's problems" is mentioned in "23 (number) |23(number) so I don't see how this could be considered "Overlinking|Overlinking". I don't understand as well why a "See also" in "Hilbert space" could be considered "irrelevant"... could you please give a reason for it? The notion of Hilbert space is one of the foundations of functional analysis so why not mention it in the page of "Hilbert problems"? If not satisfied with your answer I will discuss the edits you made in the discussion page. Thanks for your time.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Intransitivity
I'm not happy with your latest edit. Your comment says the removed text was "confused" or "confusing" but to me (who wrote it) that text is essential to eliminate confusion. You've replaced it with repetitions of what is already explained elsewhere. If you don't understand my text, don't remove it but make sure it is clarified instead. Rp (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS after reading your comments, I'm happy now. You are 100% right as far as I can see.  Thanks for the corrections! Rp (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To whoever is interested: it was removed from the article The God Delusion by a vandal and restored the same minute by ClueBot: . So BJBot must have looked at this just in that less-than-60-seconds slot. --Lambiam 06:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually the page at Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg still states: "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file", which is false. I assume that will eventually be automatically corrected. --Lambiam 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Istanbul guideline
Hello - you may be interested in commenting here. Biruitorul Talk 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

undo at Positive-definite matrix
In a recent edit at Positive-definite matrix you undid my changing the article to focus on the real case first and then move on to the complex case. Can you please explain this edit on the talk page. What I find odd is that the edit/undo doesn't change the organization but it is the only complaint about the article you make in the edit summary. Pdbailey (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Tagging
I consider it hugely improper that you didn't tag an RFC for discussion of an economic theory article with the RFCecon tag. I'm going to attribute that to thoughtlessness, rather than to malice, but either way it was out-of-line. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jump Point
A proposed deletion template has b een added to the article Jump Point, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jehochman Talk 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Terrorist
Template:Infobox Terrorist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rogerb67 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a break
You edit summary for your recent change to the Manual of Style is uncivil and cannot be defended by reference to WP:SPADE, because the position was never a lame excuse. Few people would propose to punctuation block displays of graphics or of tables, even when these participate in sentences, and there is nothing particularly logical or obvious in the notion that formulæ should be punctuated.

Your handling of this disagreement has repeatedly been egregious. You could have encouraged participation in the discussion on the talk page of the MoS when I began it; you could have posted a fair summary when you began the RfC (which, in and of itself, was a good idea); you could have properly posted the notice for the RfC in its native class. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)